Global warming BS part II
shadowcast
Posts: 2,231
This is the link of an article from a conservative columnist. Yet again, I am finding more and more info that Global Warming is another part of the "Culture of Fear" (great book by the way) that the press puts us in. Let's see how hot this summer gets. Let me clear up one thing, I am an Independent and listen to both sides. I think we have heard a lot from Al Gore and others so it's time to look at another view. Have you been outside as of late?
http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/inde ... al_wa.html
http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/inde ... al_wa.html
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Call it what you want it but to say that we cause "global climate change" I think is being proven wrong day after day. But answer this question, where is the offical scale for "Carbon Credits"? I mean all of these companies are sprouting everywhere and everyone leaves a "Carbon Footprint" but where is the scale? Where is the scale that shows me how much "carbon Credits" I should buy back?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Antarctica 'melting faster than first thought'
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/731 ... -risky-wwf
Scientists say Antarctica is melting, and much more than initially thought — spelling big trouble for Australia as sea levels rise.
Scientists used to think Antarctica was bucking the trend on global warming by getting cooler.
Now it seems they got it wrong.
US researchers have pored over data from satellites and weather stations in the biggest ever study of the frozen continent's climate and found it's warming after all.
University of Adelaide Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability director Barry Brook says the finding is alarming.
"That's bad news if you live near the Australian coast," Prof Brook was quoted by Nature magazine as saying.
"In some areas where you've currently got housing, you'd probably have to abandon those areas."
He said the sea would penetrate up to 1km inland in flat areas like South Australia's lower lakes.
Scientists now estimate the melting of Antarctica's massive ice sheets will cause the world's sea levels to rise by 1 to 2 metres by the end of the century.
The news comes as a Sydney University proposal to produce a plankton bloom in the Tasman Sea as part of a trial to combat global warming has drawn criticism from environmental groups.
Under the proposal, nitrate fertiliser would be sprinkled over a 1,600 square kilometre area of the sea to stimulate the bloom that researchers hope will sequester carbon at the bottom of the ocean for up to a century.
The UN's International Panel for Climate Change has described such a method of carbon sequestration as "speculative and unproven and with the risk of unknown side effects".
"If this experiment proceeds, the Australian Government's credibility as a protector of the oceans is on the line," conservation organisation WWF Australia's Rob Nicoll said in a statement.
"This action is little more than an attempt to find a shortcut for carbon polluting industries to gain carbon credits on the cheap, rather than through reducing their emissions."
Mr Nicoll said the proposal may breach global conventions and be harmful to marine ecosystems.
"There are no clear international guidelines for large-scale trials of ocean fertilisation and other forms of so-called geo-engineering," Mr Nicoll said.
He added that the experiment "is likely" to contravene the London Protocol for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping Waste and Other Matter, which will this year establish rules for such activity.
"Until these rules have been enacted we should refrain from attempting ocean fertilisation experiments," Mr Nicoll said.
A similar experiment in the Southern Ocean, which dropped 20 tonnes of iron sulphate, has been put on hold by the German government amid fears over its environmental impact.
ROFLMAO..
Do you even know who your source is? LMAO..Dude, you got it from the media, and the guy they got it from, like James Hansen, has no authority on the subject. He is a biologist, not a geophysicist. Meaning he studies biology, not sea levels and glacial melt
Come on people, is it really too much to ask for doom and gloom "data" to come from actual climate scientists, not biologists, or astronomers?
This study comes from Nature, the second highest impact factor Journal in the world and one of the most respected Scientific journals in the world.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 07669.html
Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year
Eric J. Steig1, David P. Schneider2, Scott D. Rutherford3, Michael E. Mann4, Josefino C. Comiso5 & Drew T. Shindell6
1. Department of Earth and Space Sciences and Quaternary Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA
2. National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 80307, USA
3. Department of Environmental Science, Roger Williams University, Bristol, Rhode Island, USA
4. Department of Meteorology, and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA
5. NASA Laboratory for Hydrospheric and Biospheric Sciences, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771, USA
6. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University, New York, New York 10025, USA
You can continue to act all high and mighty because that way you can fall flat on your face or perhaps roll even harder. Enjoy your laugh.
This pattern of temperature change has been attributed to the increased strength of the circumpolar westerlies, largely in response to changes in stratospheric ozone. This picture, however, is substantially incomplete owing to the sparseness and short duration of the observations.
Simulations using a general circulation model reproduce the essential features of the spatial pattern and the long-term trend, and we suggest that neither can be attributed directly to increases in the strength of the westerlies.
Even Gore admits that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or another.
General circulation models, or GCM's, are hypotheses about climate behavior which, like all models, produce results that are a direct function of the assumptions plugged in and factors considered.
Meaning, that "study" is legitimate, and would be accepted in a peer reviewed journal, but still doesn't tell us any actual current numbers. Just best guesses on what would happen in such and such potential scenario.
Getting back to my regularly scheduled laughter
Yes you are smarter than the Editor and Reviewing panels in Nature. If you knew anything about science then you would know scientists can never use absolute terms to describe their findings. That would lead to outright rejection of their article. You always have to leave room for your discoveries to be proven wrong hence terms like "suggest". Its funny that you found one paragraph in the article that uses weak language and pasted it to build a baseless argument after you got hammered. Plus you keep bringing "Hansen" into the picture when his name does not show up anywhere. Keep laughing, it will only make you look worse.
"In the late 1990s the disagreement between the surface temperature record and the satellite records was a subject of research and debate. The lack of warming then seen in the records was noted.[19] A report by the National Research Council that reviewed upper air temperature trends stated:
"Data collected by satellites and balloon-borne instruments since 1979 indicate little if any warming of the low- to mid-troposphere—the atmospheric layer extending up to about 5 miles from the Earth's surface. Climate models generally predict that temperatures should increase in the upper air as well as at the surface if increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are causing the warming."[20]
However, the same panel then concluded that
"the warming trend in global-mean surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming during the twentieth century. The disparity between surface and upper air trends in no way invalidates the conclusion that surface temperature has been rising."[21][22]"
^ The National Academies
^ Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (2000). "Executive Summary". Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. pp. 1–4. ISBN 0309068916.
General circulation models, or GCM's, are hypotheses about climate behavior which, like all models, produce results that are a direct function of the assumptions plugged in and factors considered.
Meaning it is one potential result of one potential scenario. Meaning it is not actual current numbers.
I could say 'if the weather went this way, would it get colder and lead to the entire southern hemisphere freezing over?", a GCM could tell me if my guess is right, but it won't show that the weather is, indeed, going that way.
I'm not trying to be smarter than them, I'm just trying to show you that while it is a legitimate study with real results, those results do not, and cannot, predict what is currently happening there, and what will happen there over the course of time. It's just one possible result for one possible scenario. Nothing more.
There is no global mean surface tempurature. I went thru this already in the other thread. To get that, you would need consisten, equally maintained surface measurements in every region of the world. For starters, we don't even come close to having that..not even close. secondly, the measuring stations we do have are not maintained the same everywhere. some are hardly maintained at all. so that panel is outright lying.
You would have to be God to predict what will happen without a shred of doubt. The model they put forward and the data they put in have been statistically evaluated and they predict there is warming. All in all the arguments on each side are as follows:
1) Pro: Scientific models are showing climate change/warming (logical)
2) Against: The models are inconclusive because they are not absolute (Bullshit/Grasping/Reaching)
I know where I stand. I know where you do and personally do not care.
..and its TEMPERATURE and it wasn't a typo considering you spelled it wrong in the previous post as well.
where does it say the data they plugged in is based on any form of findings that there is a warming. I saw nothing of the like.
1-no they aren't, they are showing what would happen to the earth if there was warming. so it isn't logical. It's reaching at best. Not to mention these models are being drawn up by friggin astronomers and biologists for crying out loud.
2-those against aren't the only ones who stated the models are inconclusive, and neither say it has anything to do with the answer being absolute. Gore himself stated as much.
Again...The models do not, under any circumstance, show that the temp is, indeed, warming. They only show what would happen IF the global temps were to warm up.
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
Who cares if I spelled something incorrectly. since when is this a fucking spelling bee?
I'm not the only one who spells things wrong, you planning to go thru like the grammar police and correct everyone else too? Or just me cos I'm special
:roll:
I corrected one word which was very important for the discussion. I didn't correct any grammar might I add.
Anyway go re-read the article and you will see where it is stated. The Nature article states that the temperatures are increasing not what would happen if they did.
What benefits will you get when you empower polluters by refusing to acknowledge humans are having an effect on the climate? Nothing. Grasp that will you.
This pattern of temperature change has been attributed to the increased strength of the circumpolar westerlies, largely in response to changes in stratospheric ozone. This picture, however, is substantially incomplete owing to the sparseness and short duration of the observations.
I see this arguement often, the "okay if you were even remotely right, tho not saying you are, why would you want to stop progress for helping the environment" arguement...
The answer is very simplistic. Because they are hurting the environment, not helping it.
More reasons-They are hurting the poor. They are stunting develoupment of third world countries. They are taking away our freedoms. They are stunting the economy. And they are regressing our progress.
I've read it and this falls under "the model isn't good enough" argument that you folk continue to use. It has nothing to do with what the model has shown except say it could be improved.
Who exactly is they? I do not buy into the commercialized bullshit of the likes of Al Gore. I am talking about individuals like ourselves. How would pushing people to pollute less harm the environment?
Again with the "they". Your argument empowers the polluters who destroy the environment a lot more efficiently than any hardcore environmentalist can dream of doing.
In the end this is what it falls down to. You care about yourself more than the earth you live on. You are afraid that they will take away your freedom to pollute carelessly. You do not care about third world countries or the poor because this doesn't really affect them. It affects the developed countries that are polluting so much.
No...the quote shows what data they based the model around. The part in bold shows the data they were basing it on was pathetically incomplete and inaccurate.
"They" are the professional environmentalists pushing their agenda on everyone.
Pushing people to pollute less is fantastic. Pushing people to do things they believe are causing less pollution but really actually causes more, is not so fantastic.
Yale economist William Nordhaus humoured Gore. He worked out the cost if Gore was right about global warming. He found that unchecked gw, of the 3 degrees Gore says we'll go up by, would cost the world 22 trillion$ in damages this century. By avoiding emissions and checking growth, Gore's package of measures -no new coal plants, lower household energy use, and so on- would reduce gw toll to 10 trillion$. Yet precisely because the policies limit economic growth and impede develoupment, they would come at a high cost: 34 trill$ to be exact. so the world would suffer a total cost of 44 trill$ worth of damage from the combo of residual warming, and Gore-inflicted economic wounds. Twice the cost of unchecked warming.
It's not about Cadillac Escalades vs. Lodgepole Pines. It's about access to energy vs. continued poverty.
Access to energy is crucial to develoupment. The policies being introduced and enforced make energy more expensive and less available. It steepens the climb faced by those in the develouping world, where billions of people have never turned on an electric light, and women in particular are condemned to back-breaking labour, gathering firewood to carry it for miles to burn in poorly ventilated huts.
Don't make assumptions of me. If I didn't care about the poor, I would not have founded a charity that helps them, and I certainly would not be refusing pay from the foundation if I was as selfish as you are attempting to portray me. I work primarily from home. I rarely am the one taking flights overseas for the foundation, we send only those most qualified for a particular project and only as often as absolutely necessary. I made a point of forming Opre so that it gathers volunteers that live in the area of the project to aid in it, typically the parents of the children we are building the schools for. I walk to the grocery store, use reusable bags, if that is what you have decided makes someone "green," now you know I do those things. I recycle, I never throw away food unless it either went bad faster than it should have (ie-I use Parmalat milk, it lasts for ages, but my most recent box went bad within a week..), or was already spoiled when I bought it. Even bones go to the dogs and my people are the kings and queens of stew's we don't waste because of a long history of not being able to, if we do, we go hungry. I grow my own fruit and veggies. And pretty much the only time ever use my vehicle, it is to transport my wheelchair-bound mother to the Veteran's Hospital for appointments.
so I advise you not to make assumptions about me and who I am and how I live my life. I have not done the same of you.
And you claim I am afraid to lose my freedom to pollute carelessly. No.
I am afraid of losing my freedom to buy a flat screen tv, or set my a/c to a temp that makes me feel comfortable, although I should note that despite living in Miami, I keep the air off a lot during the summer. My free-will choice. Not something done from fear of how big my 'carbon footprint' is, or out of force from laws governing how physically hot or cold I'm allowed to be. And most of all, fear of energy-rationing. For instance, you want to take junior to his little league game today? Tough luck, you used up all your ration flying to grandpa's funeral last sunday. A policy idea that Britain is actually entertaining.
That is why I am so afraid of losing my freedoms. Do you really want them in your home governing your body and free will to do something we currently so freely take advantage of like driving junior to a ballgame whenever you get the urge?
Maybe that slap will wake you up. You are wrong. The data is not pathetically imcomplete and inaccurate so don't paint it as such. There is a huge difference between "pathetically incomplete" and unavailable. We work with what we have. Where exactly did you get "inaccurate" from?
If you go back and see not once have I mentioned supporting hardcore environmentalists in their quests for purely green lifestyles. All I have repeatedly said was I believe humans have an impact on the climate and we should do something about it. You're ASSUMPTION of me and of everyone in the previous threads was that because we believe humans have an impact on the climate we are some hardcore environmentalists that want the rest of the world to live like the Amish. Plus, your use of emoticons or "ROFL" or some other shit constantly reflects your disrespect for others opinions so why should I respect yours?
If you have a conclusion based on largely incomplete, or to use your word of preference, "unavailable," data makes it inaccurate. To be accurate, it would require all the data.
I have made no assumptions of the like. I understand what you are saying. You are not grasping that of the things you think are "greener living," many are not, and it is the professional environmentalists who have created that list of what is or isn't "green."
I would not use the term "hardcore" paired with environmentalist when referring to the professional ones. The only thing hardcore they are is hardcore power-mongerers.
Perhaps Al could take a lesson from one unlikely convert to the cause of GW alarmism. In his sept 2007 rant from the cave, Osama bin Laden repeated the bs GW propoganda-
The life of all mankind is in danger because of global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations; yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistics speak of the death and displacement of millions of human beings because of global warming, especially in Africa.
But unlike Gore, Osama is actually walking the walk. He's cut down on his air travel LoL, telecommutes from home
Wrong. Science 101. The model is statistically accurate for the available data. More data would of been better to further solidify the model but YOU, yes you CANNOT argue its accuracy when you do not have the data to prove them wrong. Get it?
You can continue with the emoticons I could care less but don't whine when I serve you the same dish. Go buy yourself a flat screen TV before they take away your freedoms. You sound like Bush "dem terrerists wanna take away your freedoms".
In that quote they are admitting they only tested a very small portion of the area for very short periods of time. You simply cannot go by that. You have to test a majority of the area, for extended periods of time for it to be credible. THAT is science 101.
It's like urban island heating. You can measure the temp in the city and come out with, say, an average of 90 degrees. Especially if you measure it for only 3 days in the middle of summer.
Extend the period of time you are measuring it and the average will change, most likely it will go lower, let's say 85 degrees becomes the average when you extend that 3 days to a full year. Extend the area you measure to include more rural landscape and you will see a dramatic drop. Probably around 72. Cos, you see, cities have higher temps cos they have a lot more black tar surfaces that absorb more heat. Include a wider span of area going out into farm land, and you can plainly see that.
Have a look at the new topic I posted. It is real current hard data, not a computer model predicting only one out of a million potential scenarios for the future.
Go ahead with the emoticons.
I don't sound like Bush.
The environmentalists already attempted to pass laws in California that would regulate what temperature you may set your a/c to. They are currently introducing a bill to try and ban flat screen tv's. What is next? Lap tops? DVD players? Our celly? It's assinine.
And as said, Britain is already seriously entertaining the idea of energy rationing.
I sound like someone who is paying attention.
if 90% of the scientists involved are wrong-then no big deal, the human race will survive. If the small minority in the scientific community who think global climate change is not based on human activity-if they are wrong the human race could be extinct very soon.
its a such an obvious call. if we as a race MAY be affecting our climate we should take steps to lessen that impact. if we are not and we take steps anyway..no harm done.
..but you wouldn't be able to buy a flat screen TV anymore.
Data shows CO2 has risen equally in both atmospheres but the southern one is growing colder. Hmmmm
The most recent data, as provided in my newest thread, shows that while CO2 is still rising, we just took a hell of a nose dive.
still want to repeat the half baked jibberish from James Hansen, go ahead, but noone will take you seriously..
nok- your statement was plain idiotic. It's not about a fuckin flat screen. It's about them taking the first steps toward regressing us back to pre-industrialisation.
ok, not even the hardcore environmentalists that's I've heard from are even suggesting this. where did you get this idea?